Jump to content

Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2012 April 16

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

16 April 2012[edit]

All completed under here

SCV for 2012-04-16 Edit

2012-04-16 (Suspected copyright violations)[edit]
  • Article cleaned by investigator or others. No remaining infringement. Close paraphrase, but I do not judge this to be copyright vio. Alvestrand (talk) 20:43, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Article redirected to non-infringing article. Monty845 23:10, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cut and paste move, history merge requested or needed. Monty845 23:27, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
History of the source article needs to be split, explanation in request at Wikipedia:Cut and paste move repair holding pen. Monty845 23:27, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cut and paste move fixed by investigator or others. Monty845 23:31, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cut and paste move fixed by investigator or others. Monty845 23:32, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cut and paste move fixed by investigator or others. Monty845 23:36, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cut and paste move fixed by investigator or others. Monty845 23:37, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cleaned - too close paraphrasing. Monty845 23:43, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cut and paste to start a new article using the format of the old one, attribution added to history and talk pages. No further action should be required. Monty845 23:51, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Copyright investigations (manual article tagging)[edit]
  • Article cleaned by investigator or others. No remaining infringement. Unfortunately, there's no sign of it. :/ We can restore the content if it comes through. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:38, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • No copyright concern. Material PD or appropriately licensed for use. --Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:48, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Chiswick Chap has reworded some, but in any case mostly it was attributed quotes from public domain sources. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:48, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • No copyright concern. Material PD or appropriately licensed for use. According to the original tagger, who removed the tag himself. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:54, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Items from User:DpmukBOT/Backlog:

  • Article cleaned by investigator or others. No remaining infringement. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:03, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Article cleaned by investigator or others. No remaining infringement. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:51, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • No source found; copy-paste tag removed and cv-unsure tag placed at article talk. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:56, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Article cleaned by investigator or others. No remaining infringement. --Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:58, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's a possibility this is a reverse copy. While the material clearly matches the Material was added to the Wikipedia page in 2007. The http://www.jhu.edu/sopi/index.html site has a copyright date of 2010, which doesn't prove it isn't older, but I can't find a version in the Internet Archive before 2010.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 00:02, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think this is a backwards copy. :/ (Clarifying: I don't disagree that that page came after, but I am concerned that we did not originate that text.) I can't find any evidence of natural evolution. Changes here are only on Wikipedia - not on the official sites (cf. http://national.sigmaomicronpi.com/). - The only signs of evolution I can find was swiftly changed - I think probably to match up to the "master" source language. :/ (See where this was changed - not reverted, but re-edited: [2]; [3]. Put it back almost exactly where it was, save a space. The editor changed it again here, and it remained as it was for quite some time before another IP came in to "fix" it again: [4]. Unfortunately, wayback is not cooperative in viewing the master sources. I found this one, but it won't let me into the "history" tab. I'm getting that from a lot of these websites (like here; here. Total frustration). I really think that under the exhortation of WP:C to "If in doubt, write the content yourself" we should blank the material pending clarification and replace it with an originally written history. I'd be happy to write the history from scratch in that understanding, but do not wish to override you. Maybe we should get a third opinion from somebody else who works copyright here? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:54, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think I've dug out the history "tab" for the first one you mention. I believe the problem is something to do with that menu actually being a Flash app. Anyway the flash app is still on the web here despite it no longer being on the actual website. Unfortunately it would appear to point to the same web address as the history link on the current tab([5]) and the earliest version of that is 2009. Dpmuk (talk) 01:34, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm happy with the MRG approach. What I found wasn't definition, and I agree with the safe approach.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 16:38, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh, and I'd agree that from what you found it would appear very likely that their content pre-dates ours by some way so if you're willing to re-write that seems the safest approach. Dpmuk (talk) 16:56, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Article cleaned by investigator or others. No remaining infringement. And done. Thanks much for the discussion. :) I haven't rev deleted because it isn't blatant, until and unless we find a source. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:11, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

End. MER-C 08:01, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Copyright_problems/2012_April_16&oldid=492190357"